[TowerTalk] lightning standards (changes)

[jeremy-ca]

I remember that several years ago an alternative theory was making the 
rounds for tower protection.

Its basis was to have the tower as the least likely target for the leaders. 
By having an insulated base and guy wires it presented a less inviting 
target compared to other items in the area.
It would seem, on the surface anyway, that a nice juicy tree at a safe fall 
distance from the tower would make a dandy sacrifice.

Is there any convincing proof pro or con for that method?

Carl
KM1H



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Lux" <jimlux at earthlink.net>
To: "TowerTalk" <towertalk at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 11:59 AM
Subject: [TowerTalk] lightning standards (changes)


> There were some questions about how and why the standards
> change.  Here's a link to an example of what goes on in the standards
> update process:
>
> http://www.nfpa.org/Assets/Files/PDF/ROP/780-A2007-ROP.pdf
>
>
> This is a list of proposed changes to the NFPA780 standard with the
> balloting results.
>
> In other places on the NFPA website, there's what would precede this
> balloting: writeups describing the proposed changes, with the
> supporting information as to why it should change.
>
>
>
> Jim, W6RMK
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk